1BackInBlackFanJoined: 29 Mar 2010Posts: 7810Location: March of the Penguins, PA

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:10 am Post subject:

redsoxsuck05 wrote:

Lots of misplaced anger towards Bettman. If you want to blame a guy blame Donald Fehr. His hardline stance is what ended the 1994 baseball season and contributed to the demise of the Expos.

Now his goal is to abolish the salary cap in hockey, which is detrimental to pretty much most teams in the league. The only reason an Oiler/Islander dynasty could exist pre-cap was due to lack of free agency. Do you want MLB disparity in the NHL?

The hiring of Fehr was not good news at all for the fans._________________

playmaker8267Joined: 03 Jan 2008Posts: 9584Location: University of New Hampshire

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:25 am Post subject:

Last Hour extensions: 5 years, $29.5M, [url=https://twitter.com/VogsCaps/status/246628126271107072]Capitals/Carlson: 6 years, $23.8M

I like Washington's deal much more. They get a developing d-man who's already pretty steady for a hit under $4M, and will get every opportunity to extend him when his deal comes up after his age 28 season. Until then, they have a lynch-pin on the blue line for six more years. That's not insignificant for the Capitals.

Dallas' deal with Lehtonen is a little more questionable. Lehtonen was lights out last year and was very consistent. In fact, he hasn't had a month (min 10 games started) with a GAA over 3.00 since March 2009. His two best seasons have come as a Dallas Star. It's hard to question he's a tender worthy of an extension, but for $5.9M/season? That's a higher hit than Luongo, Bryzgalov, and Fleury. I'd take all three of them over Lehtonen for the immediate future and Fleury and Bryz in the long-term. He doesn't deserve to leapfrog them just yet.

The NHL has a business model that doesn't work with league wide collective bargaining and a salary cap structure.

If I own a business I negotiate based on current and future profitability of my business. My competitor negotiates with his employee's based on the same criteria except for his business. The only time my competitions salary structure comes into play is in employee retention.

In the current environment there is a huge difference between the franchises and their revenues. Currently a host of teams lose money and that's one of the under pinnings of the NHL's bargaining position.

Unfortunately that isn't the players fault.

The long term solution to labor unrest in the NHL to take steps that will lead to long term growth in attendance and grow the game. The problem is the short sighted behavior of the most profitable franchises like Toronto, Philadelphia, Detroit and Montreal. The solution lies in all NHL revenue being shared equally amongst all franchises. Then a meaningful collective agreement using percentages can be achieved.

In the current environment players are being asked to take less to subsidize unprofitable franchises because they are a drag on total revenue.

By equally sharing revenue the lesser franchises can compete financially with the rich teams. Providing a better on ice product will help grow the game and increase revenues. In the current model many franchises lose out unless ownership subsidizes the franchise from other businesses or out of his own pocket.

To further illustrate the point. A player in Philadelphia is adding value to his owner who reaps more profits than his counterpart in Florida. Why should a player contributing to high profits take less because the league is trying to help out the weaker franchises.

Either the league has to operate with total revenue sharing or they need to move away from collective bargaining league wide and each team bargains with their own players. The last example is much less desirable for the league.

The point is why should the players accept less when owners aren't willing to completely share with the poorer franchises?_________________

The NHL has a business model that doesn't work with league wide collective bargaining and a salary cap structure.

If I own a business I negotiate based on current and future profitability of my business. My competitor negotiates with his employee's based on the same criteria except for his business. The only time my competitions salary structure comes into play is in employee retention.

In the current environment there is a huge difference between the franchises and their revenues. Currently a host of teams lose money and that's one of the under pinnings of the NHL's bargaining position.

Unfortunately that isn't the players fault.

The long term solution to labor unrest in the NHL to take steps that will lead to long term growth in attendance and grow the game. The problem is the short sighted behavior of the most profitable franchises like Toronto, Philadelphia, Detroit and Montreal. The solution lies in all NHL revenue being shared equally amongst all franchises. Then a meaningful collective agreement using percentages can be achieved.

In the current environment players are being asked to take less to subsidize unprofitable franchises because they are a drag on total revenue.

By equally sharing revenue the lesser franchises can compete financially with the rich teams. Providing a better on ice product will help grow the game and increase revenues. In the current model many franchises lose out unless ownership subsidizes the franchise from other businesses or out of his own pocket.

To further illustrate the point. A player in Philadelphia is adding value to his owner who reaps more profits than his counterpart in Florida. Why should a player contributing to high profits take less because the league is trying to help out the weaker franchises.

Either the league has to operate with total revenue sharing or they need to move away from collective bargaining league wide and each team bargains with their own players. The last example is much less desirable for the league.

The point is why should the players accept less when owners aren't willing to completely share with the poorer franchises?

Couldn't agree more.

This really comes down to certain franchises losing money, & the NHL expecting the players to pay for it. The players share of revenue was cut substantially during the last lockout, and I don't see why they should bail out the owners once again.

The NHL has a business model that doesn't work with league wide collective bargaining and a salary cap structure.

If I own a business I negotiate based on current and future profitability of my business. My competitor negotiates with his employee's based on the same criteria except for his business. The only time my competitions salary structure comes into play is in employee retention.

In the current environment there is a huge difference between the franchises and their revenues. Currently a host of teams lose money and that's one of the under pinnings of the NHL's bargaining position.

Unfortunately that isn't the players fault.

The long term solution to labor unrest in the NHL to take steps that will lead to long term growth in attendance and grow the game. The problem is the short sighted behavior of the most profitable franchises like Toronto, Philadelphia, Detroit and Montreal. The solution lies in all NHL revenue being shared equally amongst all franchises. Then a meaningful collective agreement using percentages can be achieved.

In the current environment players are being asked to take less to subsidize unprofitable franchises because they are a drag on total revenue.

By equally sharing revenue the lesser franchises can compete financially with the rich teams. Providing a better on ice product will help grow the game and increase revenues. In the current model many franchises lose out unless ownership subsidizes the franchise from other businesses or out of his own pocket.

To further illustrate the point. A player in Philadelphia is adding value to his owner who reaps more profits than his counterpart in Florida. Why should a player contributing to high profits take less because the league is trying to help out the weaker franchises.

Either the league has to operate with total revenue sharing or they need to move away from collective bargaining league wide and each team bargains with their own players. The last example is much less desirable for the league.

The point is why should the players accept less when owners aren't willing to completely share with the poorer franchises?

Couldn't agree more.

This really comes down to certain franchises losing money, & the NHL expecting the players to pay for it. The players share of revenue was cut substantially during the last lockout, and I don't see why they should bail out the owners once again.

1BackInBlackFanJoined: 29 Mar 2010Posts: 7810Location: March of the Penguins, PA

Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:10 am Post subject:

It's a shame that I never felt a sense of urgency by either side to get a deal done. That's why I never had any hope that a lockout could be avoided. Not once was there any positive news coming out of these meetings.

I never understand why, in any sport, when there is a chance for a lockout or strike that the two sides don't immediately start negotiations right after the season is over. I always hear that they will meet once a week or something like that. They should go somewhere and have meetings every day until a resolution is finalized. Lock the doors until they come to an agreement. If they don't like it then too bad.

Both sides are to blame here. It's ridiculous that once again we have to deal with this crap. _________________

playmaker8267Joined: 03 Jan 2008Posts: 9584Location: University of New Hampshire

Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:34 pm Post subject:

I came here about to ask a question regarding if the Hurricanes had to put Jeff Skinner through waivers in order to sent him to Charlotte of the AHL. They didn't. The Bruins didn't sent Tyler Seguin, who was drafted in the same year as Skinner, to the AHL because they didn't want to put him through waivers. I now know why the Bruins would have had to put Seguin through waivers but Carolina didn't have to with Skinner.

On Friday evening, an NHL source told ESPNBoston.com's James Murphy that "at this point, players such as Seguin who have played more than 160 games regardless of being on an entry level contract cannot be sent down to the AHL or sign a contract to play there during a lockout. But that could change as discussions are ongoing to determine their situation."

Skinner has 146 NHL games to his name, thus allowing Carolina to send him to the AHL without putting him through waivers. Same thing with Edmonton and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. If you're wondering about Taylor Hall, you should read this.

I came here about to ask a question regarding if the Hurricanes had to put Jeff Skinner through waivers in order to sent him to Charlotte of the AHL. They didn't. The Bruins didn't sent Tyler Seguin, who was drafted in the same year as Skinner, to the AHL because they didn't want to put him through waivers. I now know why the Bruins would have had to put Seguin through waivers but Carolina didn't have to with Skinner.

On Friday evening, an NHL source told ESPNBoston.com's James Murphy that "at this point, players such as Seguin who have played more than 160 games regardless of being on an entry level contract cannot be sent down to the AHL or sign a contract to play there during a lockout. But that could change as discussions are ongoing to determine their situation."

Skinner has 146 NHL games to his name, thus allowing Carolina to send him to the AHL without putting him through waivers. Same thing with Edmonton and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. If you're wondering about Taylor Hall, you should read this.

It's interesting stuff; the AHL is going to be really entertaining this year. OKC is going to dominate with a potential Hall/RNH/Eberle line.

Let's be honest..the league doesn't give a crap about how fans actually feel. They know that fans will come flocking back whenever it's over, and because of that, this lockout has a very good chance of going the full season._________________